New Missal

[Phemie]

Rome says the term “Sacramentary” is a misuse, while at the same time the Sacramentaries in our Churches are those approved by Rome? Can you clarify?

It’s the very first thing mentioned in Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal

I don’t know why it should come as a surprise, since Rome has a problem with the translation that we’re using now and it approved that as well.

 

[japhy]

Rome says the term “Sacramentary” is a misuse, while at the same time the Sacramentaries in our Churches are those approved by Rome? Can you clarify?

Technically speaking, a “sacramentary” is a very particular book. Wikipedia actually has a rather decent explanation:
The Sacramentary is a book of the Middle Ages containing the words spoken by the priest celebrating a Mass and other church services. The books were usually in fact written for bishops or other higher clegy such as abbots, and many lavishly decorated illuminated manuscript sacramentaries have survived.

Though in the late twentieth century the word “sacramentary” was used in the United States and other English-speaking countries for the English translation of the Roman Missal, a true sacramentary is not the same as a Missal. It contains more than a missal in terms of other services, and less in that texts and readings said by others during the Mass are not included.

It is the book for the priest celebrant, containing all and only the words spoken (or sung) by him, usually assuming the presence of a choir and deacon. At the time that these books were written it was not yet the custom for the celebrant to repeat at the altar whatever was sung by the ministers or the choir, as became the rule in the Tridentine Mass. The one exception to this rule was the Gospel, which in the Tridentine Mass the priest listens to when sung by the deacon, instead of at the same time reading it quietly for himself, as he does with the Epistle when sung by the subdeacon. Thus Sacramentaries contain none of those parts of the Mass, not only no Scripture readings, but also no Introits, Graduals, Offertories and so on, but only the Collects, Prefaces, Canon.

On the other hand sacramentaries provide the priest’s texts at other occasions besides Mass. As they suppose that the celebrant is normally a bishop, they usually supply the texts for ordinations, at the consecration of a church and altar and many exorcisms, blessings, and consecrations that were later inserted in the Pontifical and Ritual.
So, to clarify: the book out of which the Mass is prayed is the Missale Romanum, the “Roman Missal”. The English translation of the modern form of the Roman Rite (i.e. the Ordinary Form, the Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, etc.) was called – by ICEL, I imagine – the “Sacramentary” instead of the “Roman Missal”. While Rome permitted this for several years, when it came time for the English translation of the third edition of the modern Roman Missal, Rome made the decision that Missale Romanum should be rendered in English as “Roman Missal”:
The word “Sacramentary”, evidently chosen to distinguish this book containing the prayers of the Mass, on the one hand, from the Lectionary, on the other, seems nevertheless to have had the adverse effect of furthering a mistaken conception of this “Sacramentary” as a new and somewhat autonomous liturgical book for the English-speaking world. The term “Sacramentary” is not characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book also contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or medieval books commonly designated sacramentaries, at least in academic usage. Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book be referred to in English as The Roman Missal, and that the official use of the word Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it. (source)

 

[diggerdomer]

That sounds to me as if you have what I referred to earlier as “personal/private missals”, rather than an “altar missal”.

Thanks. I’ll have to look into this further. As an American Catholic, I was not aware that there were different kinds of Roman Missals. I thought the Roman Missal, was, well, the Roman Missal. I’ve never heard of different authoritative types of Missals, i.e. “personal/private” vs. “altar”. Is there some Vatican or other Magisterial teaching that makes this distinction clear? The Missals I have don’t include any reference to this distinction. Thanks for any help.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s the very first thing mentioned in Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal

I don’t know why it should come as a surprise, since Rome has a problem with the translation that we’re using now and it approved that as well.

I read the “first issue” addressed as the translation of the Roman Missal. Not any use of “Sacramentary.” Can you elaborate on what you really mean? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Technically speaking, a “sacramentary” is a very particular book. Wikipedia actually has a rather decent explanation:
The Sacramentary is a book of the Middle Ages containing the words spoken by the priest celebrating a Mass and other church services. The books were usually in fact written for bishops or other higher clegy such as abbots, and many lavishly decorated illuminated manuscript sacramentaries have survived.

Though in the late twentieth century the word “sacramentary” was used in the United States and other English-speaking countries for the English translation of the Roman Missal, a true sacramentary is not the same as a Missal. It contains more than a missal in terms of other services, and less in that texts and readings said by others during the Mass are not included.

It is the book for the priest celebrant, containing all and only the words spoken (or sung) by him, usually assuming the presence of a choir and deacon. At the time that these books were written it was not yet the custom for the celebrant to repeat at the altar whatever was sung by the ministers or the choir, as became the rule in the Tridentine Mass. The one exception to this rule was the Gospel, which in the Tridentine Mass the priest listens to when sung by the deacon, instead of at the same time reading it quietly for himself, as he does with the Epistle when sung by the subdeacon. Thus Sacramentaries contain none of those parts of the Mass, not only no Scripture readings, but also no Introits, Graduals, Offertories and so on, but only the Collects, Prefaces, Canon.

On the other hand sacramentaries provide the priest’s texts at other occasions besides Mass. As they suppose that the celebrant is normally a bishop, they usually supply the texts for ordinations, at the consecration of a church and altar and many exorcisms, blessings, and consecrations that were later inserted in the Pontifical and Ritual.
So, to clarify: the book out of which the Mass is prayed is the Missale Romanum, the “Roman Missal”. The English translation of the modern form of the Roman Rite (i.e. the Ordinary Form, the Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, etc.) was called – by ICEL, I imagine – the “Sacramentary” instead of the “Roman Missal”. While Rome permitted this for several years, when it came time for the English translation of the third edition of the modern Roman Missal, Rome made the decision that Missale Romanum should be rendered in English as “Roman Missal”:
The word “Sacramentary”, evidently chosen to distinguish this book containing the prayers of the Mass, on the one hand, from the Lectionary, on the other, seems nevertheless to have had the adverse effect of furthering a mistaken conception of this “Sacramentary” as a new and somewhat autonomous liturgical book for the English-speaking world. The term “Sacramentary” is not characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book also contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or medieval books commonly designated sacramentaries, at least in academic usage. Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book be referred to in English as The Roman Missal, and that the official use of the word Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it. (source)

Of COURSE the Sacramentary is a particular book. Exactly my point. Not only a particular book, but one approved by the Vatican. If not, we would not be using it in our Catholic liturgical celebrations.

 

[japhy]

I read the “first issue” addressed as the translation of the Roman Missal. Not any use of “Sacramentary.” Can you elaborate on what you really mean? Thanks.

Phemie was referring to this passage from the letter, which I also quoted, and which you made no comment on:
Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal

I. General observations regarding the layout of the book, the disposition of its texts, and the inclusion of newly composed texts

A. The word “Sacramentary”, evidently chosen to distinguish this book containing the prayers of the Mass, on the one hand, from the Lectionary, on the other, seems nevertheless to have had the adverse effect of furthering a mistaken conception of this “Sacramentary” as a new and somewhat autonomous liturgical book for the English-speaking world. The term “Sacramentary” is not characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book also contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or medieval books commonly designated sacramentaries, at least in academic usage. Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book be referred to in English as The Roman Missal, and that the official use of the word Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it.
(I added the headings this time.)

 

[japhy]

(I’m going to try standardizing my terminology now. I will use “altar missal” for missals that are intended to be used by a priest celebrating Mass, and I will use “hand-missal” – not “private” or “personal” as I had before – for those missals intended to be used by a layman at Mass.)

As an American Catholic, I was not aware that there were different kinds of Roman Missals. I thought the Roman Missal, was, well, the Roman Missal.

Well, it’s not a national thing. Given the size of the five-volume (I think it’s five) Lectionary, it would be impractical for any nation to produce a single-volume book, comprising the Missal and Lectionary, for use at the altar: its font size would have to be too small to actually be used, or else the book itself would have to be absolutely enormous and unwieldy.

I will upload pictures later today showing the various sorts of “missals” I have in my possession.

Three of them are from before Vatican II, and they are all hand-missals of various types. One is a St. Joseph’s Daily Missal (a hand-missal) from 1961, which includes the Order of the Mass in Latin and English, and then all the prayers and readings for the days in English. One is a My Sunday Missal (a hand-missal) from the 1940s, I think, which is very much like the Daily Missal but only has Sundays in it. The other one is not a complete Missal, but a hand-missal which contains the Order of the Mass in Latin and English; it has none of the Proper prayers and readings.

The other two I own are from after Vatican II, and they are both altar missals. One is a 1985 printing of the first English edition of the 1969 Roman Missal; this is the same printing that is being used by priests in the United States right now… it’s essentially the same book that my pastor has. It has the Order of Mass and it has the Proper prayers, but not the readings; it simply says “For readings, see Lectionary #123.” This book says “Sacramentary” on the cover, but as we have pointed out in this thread already, that is a misnomer. The book is not truly a “Sacramentary” in the strict sense of the term. The second is a 2002 printing of the third Latin edition of the 1969 Roman Missal; this is the one that the new English translation comes from. It too does not include the Proper readings. It says “Missale Romanum” (“Roman Missal”) on it.

I’ve never heard of different authoritative types of Missals, i.e. “personal/private” vs. “altar”. Is there some Vatican or other Magisterial teaching that makes this distinction clear? The Missals I have don’t include any reference to this distinction.

The altar missal does not have the readings from Scripture in it. The two altar missals I have do not have the readings from Scripture in it. That is different from the altar missals used before Vatican II (and for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass), which do include the readings from Scripture.

There are probably magisterial documents about the splitting up of the pre-Vatican II “Roman Missal” into the post-Vatican II “Roman Missal” (not “Sacramentary”) and “Lectionary”, but I do not recall them right now. I will look in the Documents on the Liturgy compendium to see what I can find.

 

[Brendan]

Rome says the term “Sacramentary” is a misuse, while at the same time the Sacramentaries in our Churches are those approved by Rome? Can you clarify?

Sure.

Take the new Missal for example. Rome has approved it. It carries the recognito as the approved English translation for the Liturgy.

If the USCCB decided publish it with the words"Aunt Betty’s Killer Cupcake Recipe",in big gold leaf on the cover and spine, does that mean that Rome approved of that?

Imagine then, that priests in our parishes started to reffer to it as “The Cupcake Recipe” and Rome issued a document telling them to quit using that term, as the Missal is not a cupcake recipe. Would any Catholic be correct in stateing that the term is correct because it is just a particular book among several used in the Liturgy.

Or that, since the book in question has “Aunt Betty’s Killer Cupcake Recipe” written in big gold letters on the cover, and our priests call it “the cupcake recipe”, and has the words “Approved by Rome” stamped on the inside cover, that Rome is somehow mistaken when it says “STOP DOING THAT DAGNABIT”

 

[japhy]

Of COURSE the Sacramentary is a particular book. Exactly my point. Not only a particular book, but one approved by the Vatican. If not, we would not be using it in our Catholic liturgical celebrations.

I’m sorry, by “particular book”, I meant that a Sacramentary, historically, has specific contents. The book called the “Sacramentary” today in the US does not meet the technical requirements to be properly called a “Sacramentary”. That was the purpose of the quote that I have displayed twice now; here’s a third time:
The word “Sacramentary”, evidently chosen to distinguish this book containing the prayers of the Mass, on the one hand, from the Lectionary, on the other, seems nevertheless to have had the adverse effect of furthering a mistaken conception of this “Sacramentary” as a new and somewhat autonomous liturgical book for the English-speaking world. The term “Sacramentary” is not characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book also contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or medieval books commonly designated sacramentaries, at least in academic usage. Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book be referred to in English as The Roman Missal, and that the official use of the word Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it.
What the Vatican was saying in that letter (from 2002, I think) is that the name “Sacramentary” is not proper for what the book actually contains. The book’s title in Latin is the Missale Romanum, and the Vatican would like that to be translated as simply “Roman Missal”.

Have a blessed and splendid and reverent Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Phemie]

Well, it’s not a national thing. Given the size of the five-volume (I think it’s five) Lectionary

Yes, 5 volumes: Sundays, all cycles; Weekdays Cycle A; Weekdays Cycle B ; Gospel Book; Readings for Ritual Masses